If you were a private business owner, say you owned a high end retail company that focused on glamor clothing. Would you want someone with tattoos all over their body representing your brand? I doubt it. As we have previously stated, they are not banning people from having tattoos, that would be ridiculous. One simply cannot show their tattoos while they are at work. Many police forces require their officers to be clean shaven, unless it conflicts with their religious views. Is this discrimination, or a violation of the Constitution? No, it is simply a company or a work force trying to present themselves as professional.
I wonder why it is such a big deal when Bountiful city does this, but why it is not a big deal when my employer Ross Dress for Less or a plethora of other companies require tattoos to be covered? They are not preventing people from free speech by covering their tattoos at work, what they do on their own time is their business. Bountiful city wants to present itself as a professional city with professional employees, where is the crime in that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with this post. The fact that nobody prevents us from getting tattoos and freedom of choice is inevitable. The city of Bountiful has every right to place this requirement in order to have employees look professional. In the workforce we represent the company and not ourselves. Therefore, if we choose to work for a particular company we should comply with the dress code requirements in general.
ReplyDeleteI guess I agree that it isn't unconstitutional, but I feel pretty torn on this whole argument. I would be totally okay with any level of professional having visible tattoos, but if it were up to me I wouldn't have walls in a building one single color but covered in random patterns. I find tattoos interesting. I also probably sound crazy to most of you! Cheers.
ReplyDelete